Get a Mastodon profile by full handle@instance. Use for fediverse research.
Example call: {"acct": "Gargron@mastodon.social"}
Cost: $0.005–$0.05 USDC on Base per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| acct | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') and discloses cost ($0.005–$0.05), which adds transparency. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but for a simple lookup this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences covering purpose, example, and cost. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to call it, and cost. The response format is not described, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'acct' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by specifying the format 'full handle@instance' and providing an example ('Gargron@mastodon.social'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a Mastodon profile by full handle@instance', specifying the action and target resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup tools (e.g., lookup_bluesky, lookup_reddit) by focusing on Mastodon.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It advises 'Use for fediverse research', providing context for when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, the naming and sibling list make the scope clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set is riddled with near-duplicates: lookup_reddit/scrape_reddit, lookup_wikipedia/scrape_wikipedia, lookup_dockerhub/scrape_dockerhub, lookup_steam/scrape_steam, enrich_googlereviews/enrich_reviews, lookup_ip/lookup_ipinfo, and multiple crypto-pricing tools (lookup_crypto, lookup_coingecko, bundle_crypto_360, scrape_binance, scrape_coinbase). Descriptions try to differentiate with phrases like 'heavier than' or 'same domain but with full thread parsing,' but the boundaries are fuzzy and an agent can easily pick the wrong one.
Naming follows a fairly consistent prefix-based snake_case pattern (lookup_, scrape_, enrich_, bundle_, search_, ai_, data_) where the prefix denotes action weight and the noun identifies the target. Minor deviations exist: posts_x, ai_ask/pro/ultra (model-tier names instead of resources), sslstatus (missing underscore), and lookup_useragents_top are slightly off-pattern.
172 tools is an extreme count, far beyond even the 50+ floor for a score of 1. This floods the agent's context and tool-selection space, making every call require a search through a massive list. While aggregation servers can justify more tools, this volume is unmanageable and every tool must be evaluated by the agent.
The surface is extraordinarily broad but unevenly deep: many sources have both a light lookup and a heavy scrape variant, while other areas have just a single shallow endpoint. There is no coherent domain with complete lifecycle coverage, and despite the huge catalog, common capabilities are still absent. The breadth prevents obvious gaps, but depth and coherence suffer.